Best American General of All Time?

[Smitty-48]

If they don't expend all those forces on a pointless drive on Moscow and Leningrad, there is more than enough left over to repel the Russians in the East and the Americans in the West.

The North Vietnamese could have pulled it off, if Hitler had put Giap in charge, it's a done deal.

[Speaker to Animals]

I don't think it would have made a difference in the long run. The Japanese would have done Pearl Harbor regardless. Hitler would have declared war against US once that happened regardless. Enter the US. We would have fought them both, AND given aid to Britain, De Gaulle France, and Russia which we did anyway. We would have sustained waay higher casualties, but in the end, I think the Germans would run out of money and the US manufacturing would have saved us. Japan was fucked from the get go, and Germany didn't have the resources to fight America. Italy had a learning disability, so they were basically dead weight. WW2 would have been far more grim for Americans, which are the only ones who ultimately matter, but Germany was still fucked like a hollywood starlet in Weinstein's office.

Doubtful.

He could have waited to invade Russia after defeating the British Empire.

[Smitty-48]

Bear in mind that Normandy could have been a disaster for the Allies, if Hitler had unleashed the Panzers at the beachhead instead of holding them in reserve.

The Germans lost because Hitler screwed up, simple as that.

[heydaralon]

Bear in mind that Normandy could have been a disaster for the Allies, if Hitler had unleashed the Panzers at the beachhead instead of holding them in reserve.

The Germans lost because Hitler screwed up, simple as that.

Maybe, but now we are talking about complete alternative history. If Hitler had been a better strategist, and actually understood this stuff, he might not have been such a good politician. There were many folks like Hitler, preaching the same message at the time Hitler did. No one even remembers their names. Maybe his irrationality and impossible promises are what attracted the people. If he had just been a good general, it is likely he wouldn't have been a good politician. Generals rarely are. Hindenberg from my estimation was not. Nor was Ludendorff. Had Hitler actually been rational and had some kind of nuanced strategy, he probably would not have even been a candidate. Rather, he be the general to some ultra charismatic other Hitler, who probably would have ignored his advice and sidelined him.

[Smitty-48]

What they should have done is turn the Archangelsk Line counter clockwise.

Finland, Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine and the Caucuses.

That's all you need.

Forget Moscow, forget Leningrad, just take Baku, the rest of it is frozen wasteland to no particular purpose.

[Smitty-48]

Then do what the North Vietnamese did. Dig in, inflict casualties, wait them out.

[Smitty-48]

Think of the resources they wasted on Moscow, Leningrad and Stalingrad.

That was more firepower expended downrange, on three smallish cities, then was expended in most of the wars in the history of the world.

Just decline to blow your wad on that, and you are sitting pretty.

[Smitty-48]

The Soviets showed the way at Kursk.

If the Germans had simply concentrated all their forces on securing the oil at Baku, and then dug in like the Soviets did at Kusrk, the Germans would have won in the East.

If they win in the East, America sues for peace, throw the Japanese under the bus before they throw you under the bus, deflect the Americans into the Pacific theater.

[heydaralon]

The Soviets showed the way at Kursk.

If the Germans had simply concentrated all their forces on securing the oil at Baku, and then dug in like the Soviets did at Kusrk, the Germans would have won in the East.

If they win in the East, America sues for peace, throw the Japanese under the bus before they throw you under the bus, deflect the Americans into the Pacific theater.

Do you think Europe would be better today had that happened? How long would the Nazis have been able to have held onto their empire? Personally, I'd have rather teamed up with Hitler to fight the soviets first, then doublecrossed him later with some a-bombs on berlin.

[Smitty-48]

The Soviets showed the way at Kursk.

If the Germans had simply concentrated all their forces on securing the oil at Baku, and then dug in like the Soviets did at Kusrk, the Germans would have won in the East.

If they win in the East, America sues for peace, throw the Japanese under the bus before they throw you under the bus, deflect the Americans into the Pacific theater.

Do you think Europe would be better today had that happened? How long would the Nazis have been able to have held onto their empire? Personally, I'd have rather teamed up with Hitler to fight the soviets first, then doublecrossed him later with some a-bombs on berlin.

Well, Hitler would have died, he had Parkinsons, so it wouldn't have been Hitler America was dealing with.

It's my view that the Nazis would have moderated and been sanitized.

I think there would probably have been a Cold War, with the Germans as America's bulwark in Europe.

By now the Soviets would have collapsed, but the EU would be much more entrenched.

The Third Reich would have evolved into an EU on steroids, an EU which was like America. One nation, one army.